Posted on 02/14/2007 7:28:54 PM PST by rodomila
Yes, I like Rudy and he did great things in NYC. That said he is not my primary choice to be the nominee.
But I will vote for him in a Rudy v. FB, match-up.
Similarly, my thinking is that extending the legal protection of 'citizen' to unborn children would violate what I believe would be a greater purpose -- the freedom of those women to have control over their own bodies.
***I fail to see your greater purpose. The woman chooses to engage in the act(that's my presumption, leaving alone any unchosen act) that even 2nd graders know can bring forth a human life. We sacrifice that human life so that the woman can have "control" for a few weeks? If that human life were transferred to another, safer place where he could thrive, that woman has given up nothing but an afternoon and that, my FRiend, is a greater purpose.
Illegal abortions would force women to go thru a pregnancy they could otherwise end.
***That doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean [Criminalizing abortions]... so I'll respond to that. Yes, the woman now has the legal right to otherwise end that innocent life. 200 years ago, citizens had the legal right to have slaves. We grew up as a country, and extended the right to liberty to those slaves. Now, NO ONE has the right to own a slave and it isn't even perceived as an intrusion. America is slowly coming to the realization that those are babies getting killed, and 90% of them think it would be wise to limit the PBA ghastliness.
Because to me, that's where the 'slavery' analogy falls short. A slave is not also a part of another human being's body.
***True enough. That's why I try to focus discussion on the side of a baby which is viable, because once that baby can survive without the mother, your contention is no longer true in principle.
For up to 8 months, actually. And the time isn't even the point. Going thru the experience of pregnancy should not be forced, when there are other options.
Now if we had a technology that could remove the fetus from the beginning, and then that fetus could be transferred to an artificial womb, and then that fetus could be adopted later -- that would be fine, to me. The procedure to the mother would be little different than an abortion.
But until that time, I don't support making abortions illegal, personally.
Again, to me, this life is such an undeveloped state that ending it is no big deal.
That's why I try to focus discussion on the side of a baby which is viable, because once that baby can survive without the mother, your contention is no longer true in principle.
I disagree. Again, it has nothing to do with 'viability', in my mind. It has to do with the state of development of the human mind.
I'm certainly no expert on the subject. But up until some point, the human brain is less developed than that of a dog. So to me, killing that human brain would be little different than killing a dog. Not something you'd want to do, but if you decided it had to be done, then you'd do it.
To me, humans are just animals. The highest life-form on the planet so far, but still just animals.
Now if we had a technology that could remove the fetus from the beginning, and then that fetus could be transferred to an artificial womb, and then that fetus could be adopted later -- that would be fine, to me. The procedure to the mother would be little different than an abortion.
***We DO have a technology that can remove the fetus towards the END (it's called premature birth), that's why they're considered viable. Please address that issue. I'm glad to see that such a procedure would be okay to you early in a pregnancy. As technology progresses, we get closer to that point. In the meantime we can save millions of lives by extending protection to late term preborn babies who would live outside the womb. It is NOT a dog. Left to itself and outside resources, it becomes a glorious, beautiful child.
To me, humans are just animals. The highest life-form on the planet so far, but still just animals.
***We differ there as well. I think I'll let you have the last word on this exchange. There is an acknowledged darkness in your soul that I find disturbing; I certainly wouldn't want a president to be like that. I wish you the best but I would hope that you come to terms with yourself on the spiritual side, the same way that the original plaintiff did in Roe v. Wade. I will pray for you.
Thank you for that. We all can use all the help we can get.
And thank you for an open, honest exchange of views. You've been respectful, intelligent and expressed yourself with clarity. It was an honor to converse with you.
Hell will freeze over before I vote for Mitt, McQueeg, or Rudy. I'll vote conservative and if the GOP doesn't want my vote, it'll follow your lead. I'd rather take a bullet than this death of a thousand cuts we're living through.
Agreed with every word you said BUMP!
Rudy is a political acident waiting to happen. He left his party affiliation blank in his filing with the Electoral Commission. That means he will run as an independant if he does not get on the PUbbie Ticket, thereby removing the NYC voters from the Pubbie formula.
RUDY MEANS TO SPLIT THE PARTY. Its a threat. So that alone is enough for me to understand that he would make a poor president. Mayoral politics will not work on a national level and we do not need a mayor of the United States.
Maybe you would like to say that to Duncan Hunter's face. He was a LRRP soldier in Vietnam ( Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol....look up what that means.), so I doubt your foray into image destruction will get very far.
Actually I just finished up listening to the congressman on WRKO. He sounded pretty good to me. He answered questions directly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.